Nah, I think you're over thinking it. It's usually just a lack of studio control over the directors. Studios want short films to squeeze more money from the viewings, directors want what's best for the story. With all the success of DC box sets and things the current trend has just shifted a bit.

King Kong drags like fuck, & he even put out an extended edition later on. It was his dream project though, & after LotR he was basically given free reign to do whatever the fuck he wanted.

I didn't have any problems with The Hobbit's pacing though, but i do love the extended versions of LotR. It takes a while to get going, & it could have easily lost a good 20-30 minutes at the start without negatively impacting the film, but boredom was never an issue for me.

Nah, I think you're over thinking it. It's usually just a lack of studio control over the directors. Studios want short films to squeeze more money from the viewings, directors want what's best for the story. With all the success of DC box sets and things the current trend has just shifted a bit.

kalel wrote:
Nah, I think you're romantising it. Best for the storylol.

Ah sure, bad phrase to use. I do mean it in a more straightforward way though. They're getting paid to get the script filmed - you spend all that time filming it you're not going to want to cut more than you have to (moreso if you wrote it as well).

Buztafen wrote:
God help us if Man of Steel turns out to be 3 hours long...

It probably will with Nolan and Sneider on board, especially as it seems to fancy itself as a Malick-esque meditation on existence judging from the trailer.

The Donner original is just over two hours and that's a true epic movie, with three distinct acts each with its own setting, cast and soundtrack. It just about justifies its length, although in truth it drags a bit in the first couple of acts. It could probably lose 15 minutes or so.

I'll probably enjoy the new one being long if its good just because I like Superman, but that won't mean I'll protest how it somehow had to be that long.

disusedgenius wrote:
...you spend all that time filming it you're not going to want to cut more than you have to (moreso if you wrote it as well).

There's a bit of that, but I think there's a bit of ego as well. Nolan in particular clearly fancies himself as the next Kubrick, and I'm certain his idea of himself influences his approach, and the length of his films is a part of that.

Jackson perhaps not so much, although I still think there's an element of it with him as well.

Apparently, the order came quite late. I was reading an interview with Martin Freeman who said that principle shooting had almost finished when the order for another film came in and, because they already filmed so much footage, they didnt have to film much extra at all to complete a third movie.

By the sounds of it, it was a case of jackson basically saying 'We have enough footage for three movies' and the suits saying 'ok, make it so'.

I wonder if PJ would be considered for a "classic" epic, like a new version of War and Peace or something. I'm sure his talents could extend beyond geeky stuff. His main skill is his use of landscape imho. He'd be great for something like Laurence of Arabia.

3d 48FPS: yaay or naaay?
I'm sure it's been discussed to death in here but I'm trying to avoid any and all posts in this thread as I don't really care for anyone's opinion of the movie until I've seen it.

On that note, I found it jarring in 24fps 3D (which I saw before the HFR version) as a lot of the pans don't really work well in that format. So you're fucked either way, basically, so don't worry about it.